On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 7:26 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 02/27/2017 10:22 AM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > <snip> > > I agree we should kill the discovery hack, however that is a break in > > the keystoneauth contract. Simply put, we cannot. Keystoneauth is one of > > the few things (similar to how shade works) where behavior, exposed > > elements, etc are considered a strict contract that will not change. If > > we could have avoided stevedore and PBR we would have. > > > > The best we can provide is a way to build the instances from > > keystoneauth that does not include that hack. > > > > The short is, we can't remove it. Similar to how we cannot change the > > raise of exceptions for non-200 responses (the behavior is already > encoded). > > Ok, I'm going to go back to not using the version= parameter then. > Because it's not actually doing the right thing. > > I also am a bit concerned that basically through some client changes > that people didn't understand, we've missed a break in the upstream > transition that will impact real clouds. :( > > We can make an adapter that does what you want (requests adapters are cool). I was just chatting with Monty about this, and we can help you out on this front.
The adapter should make things a lot easier once the lifting is done.
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
